tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8779454346122608875..comments2015-03-04T00:39:30.320+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Indian origin of haplogroup R1a1 (?)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73944230518877772962010-07-30T21:40:57.974+03:002010-07-30T21:40:57.974+03:00I realize I am late to the table with this little ...I realize I am late to the table with this little bit of information that is being offered to show that clearly the R1a1 can be understood by the mutation at SRY10831.1+ and 10831.2 + as opposed to negative. My understanding is the positive is South-Central Asia and the negative SRY10831.1- / 10831.2- are real R1a1. In other words SRY10831.1 and .2 left Africa for India without mutation and on back migration returned still positive, i.e., not negative. <br /><br /> The R1a1 at 10831.1 and .2 on back migration from Asia/India entered Africa as R1b found in Central Africa specifically at Cameroon. This would show that R1 left Africa to India without mutation to Europe, became negative and returned to Africa through Europe as R1b without the negative mutation at 10831.1and .2 to end up Afro-Asiatic in both Africa and Asia/India. <br /><br />Doesn&#39;t that just make sense? (somosuno_2003@yahoo.com)/gabriellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381817230857660874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89496513446230253762010-02-02T21:46:41.852+02:002010-02-02T21:46:41.852+02:00Alan: I don&#39;t make much sense of a Central Asi...Alan: I don&#39;t make much sense of a Central Asian origin in archaeological terms. Kyrgyzstan is &quot;the end of the world&quot;, a high region probably not really populated till at least Neolithic times. Uzbekistan does have some record, specially since Neolithic, Altai too, but Kyrgyzstan... If we would have a decent knowledge of the prehistory of Kyrgyzstan it would probably begin only in the Bronze Age or barely before that time (and that surely explains the high rate of R1a1, which is probably not the case for diversity). <br /><br />But Central Asia must have acted as corridor in both directions. So at some time probably R1a1 carriers crossed the region and eventually landed in East Europe, causing a founder effect that was magnified by the IE expansions. <br /><br />Ra1a in Europe is quite limited (in large amounts) to regions that were scarcely populated in Neolithic times. So in Europe at least it does seem of IE origin. But South Asia was much more densely populated in those times already, so it makes total sense that the haplogroup is older there and that R1a1 in Europe is somehow derived from there ultimately. <br /><br />It would be really interesting if some archaeology of Central Asia would allow us to connect the first Kurgan culture of Samara valley with a Pakistani or NW Indian origin. That would confirm my &quot;boomerang&quot; hypothesis for IE culture/language and R1a1. But at the moment I can only sit and wait.Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14870887308496665612010-02-02T20:38:45.689+02:002010-02-02T20:38:45.689+02:00What about the possibility of R1a coming from Cent...What about the possibility of R1a coming from Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan area) and spreading to Europe and India? In geographical terms, that seems less far-fetched than either the out-of-India or the Kurgan hypothesis.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06308497098496950152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20779790249792575822009-11-22T20:35:27.406+02:002009-11-22T20:35:27.406+02:00And all these three ancestries have historically (...<i>And all these three ancestries have historically (mostly) spoken Indo-European languages for all known history</i>.<br /><br />Not really relevant. Languages come and go, genes remain. <br /><br />Anyhow, a good deal of R1b (and maybe also I) dominated population was not speaking IE at the beginning of the historical records. If we dig a little further, it&#39;s most likely that nobody West of the Rhine and North Sea or South of the Alps spoke IE languages some 3300 years ago and this can be extended to up to 700 and 300 BCE for the vast majority of this area. <br /><br /><i>... why would we associate the artefacts left behind by this culture with the Indo-European *languages*?</i>- <br /><br />The Samara valley cultural sequence is the first one anywhere where we find the Kurgan culture, which expanded to the Eastern half of Europe since 3500 BCE (culminating c. 2400 BCE, with Corded Ware). The resulting cultures directly or almost directly lead to the historical IE speakers you mention before. <br /><br />Similarly other Kurgan-originated waves can be archaeologically traced with pretty decent detail heading to Altai-Uyghuristan (leading to Tocharians), Caucasus-Anatolia (leading to Hittites) and Central-Southern Asia (leading to Indo-Iranians). <br /><br />The Kurgan model is quite solid and hence mainstream. Alternative hypothesis (Anatolian, Indian...) are very feeble instead.<br /><br /><i>You asserted an East-&gt;West migration of Indo-European speakers - what is this assertion based on?</i>-<br /><br />I meant in Europe, not in Asia. It is based on the Kurgan model, which you should read a bit about in order to understand. There&#39;s not enough room here to explain in detail a process that takes several millennia.Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17465694581442380022009-11-22T12:54:22.637+02:002009-11-22T12:54:22.637+02:00Thanks for pointing out the I haplogroup, Maju - i...Thanks for pointing out the I haplogroup, Maju - indeed, about 20% of all Europeans are expected to be I.<br /><br />And all these three ancestries have historically (mostly) spoken Indo-European languages for all known history.<br /><br />Regarding R1b &amp; Indo-European languages not being related: I do not believe the African R1b people are a significant population. If we consider fringe groups, even the R1a people have Dravidian speakers.<br /><br />Why then associate R1a exclusively with Indo-European speakers, while saying that R1b speakers were not originally Indo-European speakers due to African R1b people who speak other language groups? I strongly believe that these speakers are minority groups, that are geographically situated at the periphery or fringe of the core of the Indo-European speakers. So, except for these peripheral groups, R1b, R1a as well as I people all spoke Indo-European languages for all history.<br /><br />Regarding the age of the Indo-European language dispersion: The Samara valley culture is itself reliably dated to about 5000 BC. However, why would we associate the artefacts left behind by this culture with the Indo-European *languages*?<br /><br />An unfortunate issue with the Indo-European languages is that they developed a script relatively late in time. So there aren&#39;t too many attestations in older times.<br /><br />The 2000 BC date I gave corresponds to estimates of the age of composition of the Indian Vedic texts. Yes; dating of oral literature is dodgy and approximate at best. But it&#39;s still better than basing our chronological estimates on hypotheses.<br /><br />PS: You asserted an East-&gt;West migration of Indo-European speakers - what is this assertion based on?Typhoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13183668177261566058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29253454500228526692009-11-20T01:19:32.807+02:002009-11-20T01:19:32.807+02:00And haplogroup I too. All three major European hap...And haplogroup I too. All three major European haplogroups can be said to be related to IEs if we only look at modern distribution. <br /><br />However it does not look like R1b is particularly related (take for instance the African or Basque R1b*) and we do know instead that R1a is (even from ancient DNA, which systematically pops up with loads of R1a for Kurgan-related peoples, in Europe as in Central Asia). We also know that IEs expanded from East to West. <br /><br /><i>Why would you assume that speakers of each language were of a single Y-chromosome haplotype as recently as 2,000 BC BC? Surely, people were invariably of mixed lineage as they are now</i>.<br /><br />If proto-Indoeuropeans were originally concentrated in a rather small population at the Samara valley, as the Kurgan model holds, they could well have got some fixated lineages, as some other &quot;marginal&quot; populations like Basques or Irish still do. <br /><br />In their case this would be R1a or a subclade like R1a1a. However it is very hard to demonstrate that this lineage was limited to them. I could well have been present and even common in other areas like India or East Europe even long before IE expansion. <br /><br />The actual dates for this original PIE population at Samara valley would be 5500-3500 BCE before they began expanding, not 2000 BCE.Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13299000414749074582009-11-19T21:32:49.039+02:002009-11-19T21:32:49.039+02:00A lot of this discussion seems to pre-assume a cor...A lot of this discussion seems to pre-assume a correlation between R1a and the Indo-European languages.<br /><br />Looking at the world as of 2009, the people who speak Indo-European languages are R1b and R1a, for the most part.<br /><br />There are several communities which are majority R1b and majority R1a respectively, that have been known to speak Indo-European languages for all history. Clearly, this points to the Indo-European speakers having been a mixed group (with respect to Y-chromosome haplotype) since the inception of this language group.<br /><br />Why would you assume that speakers of each language were of a single Y-chromosome haplotype as recently as 2,000 BC? Surely, people were invariably of mixed lineage as they are now.Typhoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13183668177261566058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28773565382337510162009-11-19T21:30:38.689+02:002009-11-19T21:30:38.689+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Typhoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13183668177261566058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65781208014514329362009-08-08T04:57:33.200+03:002009-08-08T04:57:33.200+03:00Also I&#39;m presumming that R1a or R1b branched o...<i>Also I&#39;m presumming that R1a or R1b branched off only once -- is it possible that that the mutations could have occurred more than once?</i><br /><br />No. It&#39;s a practical impossibility, it seems. We are talking of a single nucleotide that has changed out of the whole Y chromosome (out of 60 million) for each SNP, in one out of three possible directions of change (not counting deletions and insertions), and all of these lineages which are minimally researched are defined by several, often many known SNPs, not just one. <br /><br />Still there are a few SNPs that seem to have back-mutated in a tiny proportion of cases (I guess one case and all the rest are descendants). This is the case of P25. But as most lineages (and certainly R1b and R1a) are described by many SNPs, in the end the phylogenies are very very safe. You may want to have some caution if there is only one known SNP but as soon as there are two or three it becomes totally impossible.Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61946810809461569352009-08-08T01:03:11.161+03:002009-08-08T01:03:11.161+03:00The key, of course is where haplotypes R or R1 wer...The key, of course is where haplotypes R or R1 were when R1a or R1b branched off.<br /><br />Also I&#39;m presumming that R1a or R1b branched off only once -- is it possible that that the mutations could have occurred more than once?<br /><br />In any case, the obvious place to look is anywhere the R or R1 type is found. I understand that both have small occurences in the Middle East and particularly Pakistan -- not the steppes or north central asia or India.Livoniahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05589404219598229067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-478320099921868692009-07-26T16:55:47.407+03:002009-07-26T16:55:47.407+03:00@gongomatic:
It&#39;s not impossible that an elit...@gongomatic:<br /><br />It&#39;s not impossible that an elite group assimilated others, as Arabs did with Berbers, Egyptians, etc. But:<br /><br />1. It&#39;s very unlikely that they left no genetic traces, even if minimal.<br /><br />2. You still need an explanation for R1a being spread at high levels between Central Europe and Uttar Pradesh. <br /><br />The best explanation so far is elite domination by Indoeuropeans spread from the Urals in a well known archaeological sequence that spans through all West, Central and South Eurasia. <br /><br />I agree that R1a1 is most likely original from South Asia, as are R and P (and maybe even Q too). But most sequences are not clumped towards that South Asian root sequence. Instead they form a tight cluster near the end of the haplotype phylogenetic tree, with clear prevalence of the European/Central Asian populations. <br /><br />So while R1a1 as such would be of South Asian origin, it surely spread out of India in a founder effect event maybe in Neolithic times. The main haplotype cluster belongs obviously to a more recent event of expansion that can still fit very well with IE/Kurgan spread as we know from archaeology. <br /><br />You do need a mechanism for this spread and so far the Kurgan model is the one that fits best by far. <br /><br />When I red Indian &quot;nationalist&quot; critics, they tend to ignore everything that is non-Indian in the R1a1/Indoeuropean area. You can&#39;t reach to any solid conclusions by doing that, obviously. You need a model, an explanation, that is comprehensive for all the affected area of Eurasia, not just for South Asia (or Europe or whatever). <br /><br /><i>on blood group B - the incidence of B trends downwards away from a maximum in India - parts of western europe, africa and the native americans are highly lacking in it. there isn&#39;t any implied linkage (that i know of) to r1a however. just an analogy</i>.<br /><br />Not sure what you mean but, in Europe, blood group B is more dense towards the NE (and virtually null among Basques, etc.) and I am quite sure that this blood type expanded (in Europe) with Indoeuropeans, as the pattern is very obvious. It&#39;s surely not the case in India or other parts of Asia.Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39562975763722258292009-07-26T11:09:14.260+03:002009-07-26T11:09:14.260+03:00BTW:
the austro-asiatic language groups to compar...BTW:<br /><br />the austro-asiatic language groups to compare would be santali and khasi.<br /><br />also, &quot;the diet many Europeans have been fed over centuries etc&quot; applies to Indian higher castes also - the idea that they are genetically similar to lower-castes is sure to give many of them angst as well.<br /><br />on blood group B - the incidence of B trends downwards away from a maximum in India - parts of western europe, africa and the native americans are highly lacking in it. there isn&#39;t any implied linkage (that i know of) to r1a however. just an analogy.gongomatichttp://openid.aol.com/gongomaticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66174674372665001272009-07-26T10:47:18.119+03:002009-07-26T10:47:18.119+03:00&quot;LOL, because your damn cheater murderous IE ...&quot;LOL, because your damn cheater murderous IE barbarians have been meddling in our business for more than 3 milennia.&quot; You&#39;re pretty entertaining to read Maju. <br /><br />Isn&#39;t it possible that IE was invented by non-R1a&#39;s and then imposed into R1a populations by an elite group? A similar Arabicization has happened to Berber populations in North Africa for instance. In India, Dravidian and Aryan languages are both linked to caucasoid populations, but Austro-Asiatic languages are spoken both by Australoids and Mongoloid populations - one of them clearly switched. Then you have the Brahui group in Balochistan (Pakistan, E. Iran, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan) who speak Dravidian. Couldn&#39;t it be that ethnic Aryans (i.e. North Indians, Pakistanis, South Afghans, East Iranians) all spoke Dravidian and switched to IE at some point due to a small invading group that didn&#39;t leave much of a genetic mark? Aryan may have been a name that group used for itself, which the newly-minted R1a IE speakers adopted for themselves, much as many ethnic Berbers now call themselves Arabs.<br /><br />R1a is almost certainly Indian or near-Indian in origin (much as ABO blood group B seems to be as well). The diversity metrics surfacing in genetic surveys are pretty much clinching that. People who have an agenda (racial, political, religious) will deny anything - including the holocaust, the existence of dinosaur bones or the out-of-Africa theory - and that won&#39;t change. After the diet many Europeans have been fed over centuries the idea of being of African (far) or Indian (not-so-far) descent has to be uncomfortable.<br /><br />I was struck by a sentence in the original post - &quot;Moreover, India is exceptionally notable for its lack (except in a few erratics) of the related haplogroup R1b, which once again argues against the emergence of R1a in India itself.&quot; This makes absolutely no sense at all and betrays a basic lack of understanding of how genetic drift works. R1a isn&#39;t a descendant of R1b. The assertion is like saying &quot;Bengali and English are both Indo-European, and since Bengali didn&#39;t exist natively in Liverpool, that&#39;s a strong argument that English couldn&#39;t have originated in England.&quot; Welcome to Creationist Bizarroland.gongomatichttp://openid.aol.com/gongomaticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22852608459634969792009-07-09T07:14:41.648+03:002009-07-09T07:14:41.648+03:00again it is eastern Iran which has R1a and L also....again it is eastern Iran which has R1a and L also. Not other parts of Iran. 50 miles + or -. The place also has some mt M.<br /><br />Lot of angles here.<br /><br />Indian Aryan cultural hegemony complex <br />Iranian Aryan home land complex<br />European Aryan superiority complex.<br /><br />every one has the right to deny others.South Central Haplohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916788636469000041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2407772055286351202009-07-09T05:14:02.739+03:002009-07-09T05:14:02.739+03:00Interestingly, Kivislid shows higher diversities o...Interestingly, Kivislid shows higher diversities of R1a (and rare forms of R by Reguiro) in Eastern Iran. R1b also hits a peak in W. Iranian Zagroszadeh79http://www.blogger.com/profile/11834163614642737338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5143835819130598742009-07-01T11:30:39.119+03:002009-07-01T11:30:39.119+03:00The idea that Indo-European language is centered i...<i>The idea that Indo-European language is centered in origin at or near the Black Sea region and thus negates Aryans being Indians and vice versa is a serious flaw in logic, a tautology</i>.<br /><br />I&#39;d say that this sentence is a tautology and the fact that you decline to discuss it further demonstrates it.<br /><br />Anyhow, Aryans are Indians, as nowhere else (except Iran maybe) is this term used. In the context of Europe talking of &quot;Aryans&quot; sounds to Hitler and nothing else. <br /><br /><i>It is funny when one will agree that Indians are Aryans and Aryans are Indians vis a vis linguistics but will argue against Indians=Aryans, and Aryans=Indians on the grounds of anthropology and or genetics ala R1a it is accepted. Then on the contrary when one will agree that Indians are Aryans and Aryans are Indians vis a vis anthropology or genetics ala R1a but will argue against Indians=Aryans and Aryans=Indians on the grounds of linguistics</i>. <br /><br />Another tautology. Indoeuropean or Indoaryan are linguistic families and hence Bengalis, Tajiks, Swedes, Greeks, Mexicans and Jamaicans are all Indoeuropean, regardless of where this language family originated. <br /><br />I would never deny that some Indians are Indoeruopean or Indoaryan (Dravidians are not as are not Mundas either, obviously) but that linguistic (and maybe cultural fact) does not need to be related to where Indoeuropean began. <br /><br />Mexicans are Latinos but that doesn&#39;t mean that Latin first appeared in Tenochtitlan. <br /><br />You could get nowhere that way. Or you could maybe argue that Germanic arose in Salt Lake City, Slavic in Vladivostok, Arabic in Mauritania or Bantu in Mozambique... with loads of imagination and total disregard for the factual data. <br /><br /><i>So from the above it is clear that almost everyone is too afraid to mention the large white elephant in the room.<br /><br />It is tragic that not even science is above emotions and politics</i>.<br /><br />Blah blah. You make &quot;poetry&quot; not any scientific discussion. You cry a lot but bring forward no data that might support your hypothesis. <br /><br /><i>If you are not Aryan/Indian/IE then why are you trying to define who or what we are?</i>- <br /><br />LOL, because your damn cheater murderous IE barbarians have been meddling in our business for more than 3 milennia. It&#39;s not like if I&#39;m talking about some exotic ethnicity like, say the Bushmen or the Ainu (that I would be entitled to discuss anyhow, if I know something - why not?) but about which is probably the most important and annoying macro-ethnicty worldwide. <br /><br />And if that&#39;s not enough to you, I am speaking IE right now, so WTF?! <br /><br />So quit that arrogant ownership discourse: everybody is either IE or IE-influenced nowadays. There&#39;s no owner, it&#39;s no any copyrighted trademark.Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18296952518810746802009-07-01T10:37:43.786+03:002009-07-01T10:37:43.786+03:00The idea that Indo-European language is centered i...The idea that Indo-European language is centered in origin at or near the Black Sea region and thus negates Aryans being Indians and vice versa is a serious flaw in logic, a tautology.<br /><br />I will not expound on this any further.<br /><br />It is funny when one will agree that Indians are Aryans and Aryans are Indians vis a vis linguistics but will argue against Indians=Aryans, and Aryans=Indians on the grounds of anthropology and or genetics ala R1a it is accepted. Then on the contrary when one will agree that Indians are Aryans and Aryans are Indians vis a vis anthropology or genetics ala R1a but will argue against Indians=Aryans and Aryans=Indians on the grounds of linguistics.<br /><br />You have all seen this and many have practiced this too.<br />It is always easy and safe to give a little and deny a little too.<br /><br />So from the above it is clear that almost everyone is too afraid to mention the large white elephant in the room.<br /><br />It is tragic that not even science is above emotions and politics.<br /><br />I find it interesting when people place disclaimers of belonging to a certain ethnic group be it by direct words or a pseudonym then go on to support a stance that is not in the best interest of that group in order to achieve some sort of self styled relevancy.<br /><br />However even more entertaining is the one claiming not to belong to a certain ethnic group and goes ahead to argue against what a certain ethnic group believes is their identity and legacy. If you are not Aryan/Indian/IE then why are you trying to define who or what we are? Mind your own business. Ever hear of self-determination? Live and let live. We are tired of being told who or what we are or were, now that genetics and linguistics combined with Archeology are proving that Aryans are Indian and vice versa, you people cannot stand it. You were all so quick to buy in to the AIT and still try to defend a theory with nil credible evidence but pseudo-science.<br />Yet when irrefutable evidence is placed before your jaundiced eyes, you deny it.<br />Shame on you.Aryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03826470512227161306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44069078012961842382009-07-01T07:09:43.404+03:002009-07-01T07:09:43.404+03:00Nonsense. And I speak as non-IE who doesn&#39;t gi...Nonsense. And I speak as non-IE who doesn&#39;t give a dime for IE or &quot;Aryan&quot; identity which I find alien and opressive.<br /><br />Reason one: linguistics:<br /><br />Linguistically there&#39;s no way that IE derivates from Indoaryan. Indoaryan is a branch of Indoiranian (or Eastern IE) which in turn is a branch of IE at parallel standing with Western IE and the various other branches (Tocharian, Hittite, Albanian and Greco-Armenian - or Greek and Armenian separately, depending who you read). <br /><br />The obvious gravity center for all these subfamilies of IE is around the Black Sea or the Caspian. If South Asia would be at the origin of IE languages, there would be greatest linguistic diversity also there. But all South Asian IE languages are closely related Indoaryan dialects, derived from Sanscrit, just like Romance languages are derived from Latin. <br /><br />Reason two: archaeology, prehistory.<br /><br />There&#39;s absolutely no indication that there was any migration out of India at any recent time. Would there have been such migration we would be able to find some traces. <br /><br />Also why would highly civilized IVC South Asians become barbarians of the steppes? We have never seen or detected such transformation. <br /><br />Reason three: genetic. <br /><br />No other South Asian lineages are found at meaningful levels in Central Asia or Europe (nor West Asia either), much less in association with R1a. Would there have been such migration, we&#39;d see some L or some H... We see almost nothing of that (some L erratics in West Asia yes but nothing more). <br /><br />What this paper indicates (and we remain expectant of further studies that may confirm and expand this line of research, or maybe even question it) is that there appears to be highest R1a1a diversity (and closest to the root) in South Asia. If you follow the philogeny, the next step is in Europe/Central Asia (for some reason the authors did not make a difference in this - what is annoying) and then there is a big cluster including most of R1a1a worldwide. <br /><br />For me this indicates quite clearly that R1a migrated from South Asia to Europe at stem stage (as a small private lineage) and had a founder effect somewhere (probably at Samara valley), expanding from there thereafter.<br /><br />This does not question the Kurgan model, but actually ratifies it. It does not even question the association of R1a1a with Kurgan IEs but actually confirms it, to the exclussion of some haplotypes. <br /><br />It also shows, IMO, that haplogroup R1a1a is significatively older than 5500 years, probably in the range of 10,000 years ago. Something that hyper-recentists will not like but that seems obvious to me on light of the overall evidence.Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78999325506167169692009-07-01T04:58:13.154+03:002009-07-01T04:58:13.154+03:00Now the genetic evidence of R1a fits in with the l...Now the genetic evidence of R1a fits in with the linguistic/cultural evidence of an Indian origin of &#39;Aryans&#39;.<br /><br />Why is it that such arguments or debates degenerate in to minutiae wherein someone invariably brings up an obscure argument involving ancient Babylon or some minor Akkadian king?<br /><br />Just like the zero issue...been established it is INDIAN but someone will always bring up...what about Babylon?<br /><br />Give it a rest........<br /><br />Let the evidence lead you for a change now.<br /><br />Put aside your &#39;racial&#39; pride and longing for being &#39;Aryan&#39;.<br /><br />What is it with so much anti-Indian sentiments......in everything?<br /><br />I just don&#39;t get it.........why is and are people always trying to steer the truth of the universe away from India?<br /><br />I am sure if you think about it, you too will see this &#39;paradigm&#39; of misinformation/denial throughout history.<br /><br />Thus I surmise there is something significant to us ALL in the history of India--past, present and future.<br /><br />Is the NWO/Shadow Power keeping you away from the truth?!<br /><br />Think about it, or don&#39;t, your choice.<br /><br />Accept it that if you are not Indian you are not a pure &#39;Aryan&#39;.<br /><br />Sorry, it is in your genes.......why argue?Aryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03826470512227161306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21101914388019381402009-07-01T04:52:30.663+03:002009-07-01T04:52:30.663+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Aryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03826470512227161306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63857656755506645732009-07-01T04:42:37.186+03:002009-07-01T04:42:37.186+03:00LOL
What is it with you people?!
Can any of you r...LOL<br />What is it with you people?!<br /><br />Can any of you read, and reason?!<br /><br />The OVERWHELMING evidence indicates that R1a is INDIAN in origin.......do you get it? I-N-D-I-A-N..say it nice and slow......ata boy!<br /><br />Now realize that ARYAN=INDIAN.<br /><br />Why do people still try to say otherwise?<br /><br />Give up already, the ARYAN INVASION MYTH has been proven just that......a myth!<br /><br />Genetics is telling you Indians are Aryan and Aryans are Indians.Aryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03826470512227161306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45249320260550897982009-07-01T04:41:19.660+03:002009-07-01T04:41:19.660+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Aryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03826470512227161306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79374153431309580162009-04-16T08:11:00.000+03:002009-04-16T08:11:00.000+03:00Hmm, you seem real yet registered with a robot-lik...Hmm, you seem real yet registered with a robot-like name. I wonder why, especially because you are also followig my blog. <br /><br /><I>Migration of humans and animals and birds is always towards hotter hospitable and vegetative climates</I>Migrations tend to go in the direction of less resistence and max benefit. I'd dare say of where f{benfit/resistence} shows its highest figure. So if the north is cold but empty: people will go there, and if the north happens like since the heavy plough was developed, to provide high agriultural rates, people will go there and/or expand there. <br /><br />With your blank statement (calling that a theory is insulting for true theories) there would be no polar bears and we humans would have never left Africa (which IMO could have been a better idea after all but...)<br /><br /><I>Which also proves why India is the most populated in the world.</I>Uh... what about China? Most of that overpopulation is anyhow very recent: while Europe and the USA stagnated their demic growth, the rest of the world did not (or did so more gradually), "misusing" the improvements in health care, without using in comparable ammounts those of "education". This was driven of course by an endemic need of Capital in underdeveloped (neocolonial) areas to get as much cheap manpower, and not educated workers who could challenge the status quo, as possible. A century ago, India was still comparable to Europe in terms of population, same for China. Now they are "monsters". But I'd say that Europe too is overpopulated, even if not at such extreme levels. That's why people in fact migrates from warmer areas to cold Europe: because it's where f reaches its highest values nowadays (along with other "rich" regions). <br /><br /><I>If reverse migration were true and Brahmins and Sanskrit moved from India to Europe, there would be a lot of dark skinned people in Europe instead of the other way round.</I>Not if the process happened loooong ago and was basically male-mediated (i.e. filtered by many consecutive generations of local women). The overall autosomal genetic pool would be in the end almost 100% local, even if nearly all the Y-DNA is from a distant origin. It happens a lot in fact. <br /><br />Anyhow R1a is also very common in low caste Indians, who often are quite dark (though in truth, caste lines are not really about skin color and many low caste people are much whiter than many high caste ones). This is again because the genetic flow has been "filtered" by many generations of local women (basically).<br /><br />Also people tan and untan and <A HREF="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/04/epigenetic-modifications-can-be.html" REL="nofollow">these adaptations may persist through generations without any real need of a true gene via epigenetics</A>. We really don't know enough about that yet but racialist ideas based on phenotypic traits, including skin color, may be largely false. For example white USAmericans seem to have nowadays much lower frequency of blue eyes than a century ago (read at Razib long ago - search for it yourself) with apparently no or extremely low immigrational influence. Logically they will be tanning overall and losing those extreme depygmented traits they can get rid of (and more should be Australians, who live in the tropics) because those climates are not the very especial conditions of Northern Europe. <br /><br /><I>The truth is Aryan Brahmkins originated in Iran and central Asia and not in Europe or India.</I>That is not true: Iran was conquered by IEs after big parts of India. Iranians are in fact the last genuine Indo-Europeans of the steppes (Scythians and the like). Additionally not all Brahmins are R1a, while many among the low castes are. <br /><br /><I>The Kshatriyas are partly remanants of the Greek Army of Alexander who conquered india in 3rd century BC </I>Alexander did not conquer India in the modern sense, just Pakistan. East of it laid what would soon be the Empire of Asoka and that's why Alexander decided, even if reluctantly, to pull back: too big and powerful to dare fighting it. The Ksatriya caste is much older than that anyhow: it's obviously from the Vedic period.Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76284718450591734052009-04-16T02:32:00.000+03:002009-04-16T02:32:00.000+03:00Those claiming the Indian origin of the Brahmins a...Those claiming the Indian origin of the Brahmins and Zoroastrians, have only one question to answer.<br /><br />Why do the Zoroastrians, Brahmins and those at the top of the Hindu caste system have whiter skin color than those at the bottom??? <br /><br />Migration of humans and animals and birds is always towards hotter hospitable and vegetative climates , which in itself proves the Aryan invasion theory. Which also proves why India is the most populated in the world.<br /><br />If reverse migration were true and Brahmins and Sanskrit moved from India to Europe, there would be a lot of dark skinned people in Europe instead of the other way round. <br /><br />Aryan Hindu ideologues decades ago claimed they were pure Europeans and wanted equality with whites in the Europe and USA. Now they claim that they originated in India to spread the worship of the Kings (Devas) who slaughtered the Dravidians of India centuries ago.<br /><br />The truth is Aryan Brahmkins originated in Iran and central Asia and not in Europe or India. The Kshatriyas are partly remanants of the Greek Army of Alexander who conquered india in 3rd century BCvQ6M9gwD3MRUhhm_347rHaKArh.E.YBE2Q--https://me.yahoo.com/a/vQ6M9gwD3MRUhhm_347rHaKArh.E.YBE2Q--#8efa9noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14211672988593932912009-03-08T22:06:00.000+02:002009-03-08T22:06:00.000+02:00Or shouldn't Eastern Europeans be less blond? Real...Or shouldn't Eastern Europeans be less blond? Really paternal lineages can only tell us so much on the overall origins of the people. Maternal (mtDNA) lineages often speak much more clearly instead. <BR/><BR/>For instance, Native Americans have Y-DNA lineages that are direct relative of South Asian and European R, yet they are much more close on the overall genetic makeup (and phenotype) to East/North Asians. Their mtDNA is almost exclusively from that region indeed. <BR/><BR/>Or take Finns: half of their Y-DNA is direct relative to East/North Asian clades, yet their mtDNA is totally European. Again they look mostly lke their mtDNA would suggest.<BR/><BR/>Paternal lineages simply are sometimes subject to extreme drift, it seems. Individual men can potentially have hundreds of children, while women can hardly produce more than a dozen or so. In the long run this favors the fixation of paternal lineages.Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com